Talk:Planetary Mechanics/@comment-5234503-20150410221905/@comment-5381085-20150414234537
Ah okay, I was under the impression one installation was just a single station or something, hence why I thought it would have to be moved and why it wouldn't pollute so much. Thanks for the explanation. As for population, 1% increase per year would add up to about an 11% increase per decade. So if population growth is higher in the imperium we probably wanna change base growth to 10+d5% or maybe even higher (I know I was the one who said 5+d5, it was a bad suggestion sorry). Also I noticed you put the agri-complex on varda to 'efficient' status, but since it does not use resources surely 'preserving' status is better in every way? I wonder, should Agri-Complexes have a variable method of extraction at all? I already threw you a suggestion for a building which improves Resilience, like a weather cathedral or something, obviously very expensive. I'm a bit errr on the reducing-resilience effect of mining for fuel. First off I don't really see why it would have such an effect when mining ferrum for example doesn't. Secondly, since secondary Industry requires fuel as a necessity, it makes it very hard to justify mining it yourself instead of importing it. Since if you mine it yourself not only do you have to pay the ecodamage for the fuel mining operation itself but it also reduces the resilience of your ecosystem. So mining your own fuel to make stuff is like a double penalty compared to the single penalty of paying to import it instead, when mining your own fuel should be a slightly preferable option. Like for example, let's say we just want to grow food and make rations. That sounds like it should be a sustainable activity even for a relatively fragile planet. But because we'' need'' fuel for the secondary industry, and the fuel reduces our resilience, we end up over the limit. Just for making provisions. Whereas if there wasn't the reduction we'd be operating at-limit. So importing fuel is just always a better option. I was thinking that instead of the resilience reduction fuel mines could instead have a -1% or so population growth modifier, to represent lack of expansion around areas near the fuel mines because of the possibility of things such as fuel spills. In a similar vein, since you said these installations represent a massive planet-wide infrastructure, Radium mining should probably have more like a -5% population growth modifier per decade. Remember it's not just things like cancer and growing an extra head, sterility is a big problem in uranium mines irl. Another idea I toyed with was being able to dedicate agri-complexes to fight ecodamage instead of profit/population. Like planting large amounts of efficient plantlife to negate some of the effects of industry. Was thinking Level 2 could give -1 ecodamage and Level 3 could give -2. Just a suggestion. What else...we discussed planetary defences, still WIP...gotta talk to you about Space Stations, MS and I came up with ideas for them... I think that's about it, got no other issues to raise. Like I said before all the money figures seem 100% bang on, so really good job on that.